Deleted member 1487
Ok then they have more ground to fight fore if the front is pushed further away then the logical conclusion would be more ground to fight for just because the border is further out does not stop the germans getting stalemated there. Now the germans were very effective and the italians not so. This does not change the fact the germans are at a disadvantage here in general lets look at otl campaign in italy a rather heavily outgunned and manned and small german force held against the whole of the economic and military might of the allies for two years in terrain far easier than the alps on the whole. At the campaigns height the allies had 1,300,000 on the peninsula why the germans only 430,00 that is a massive difference and they held out against them for 2 years. Now you have the full italian military and likely french and British assistantince with their full economic might behind them italy will not be short supplies. How the hell are the germans going to beat that they can easily stalemate it but they sure as hell cant beat it. This is in terrain far worse or just as bad.
Sorry that reply was meant for wiking yes i agree with you.
Your reply if anything shows much more effective the Germans were than the Allies despite their gross material advantage; ITTL the Germans would have a material advantage over Italy assuming they postpone it until France is overrun.
You have to clarify what you mean, I don't understand what you're referring to.The break for you are referring got nearly completely overturned.
The French, who were much more prepared to fight a modern war than Italy, were thoroughly trounced in May 1940. Even after defeating France they were able to immediately launch the Battle of Britain despite the unfavorable circumstances and then turn and fight in North Africa, the Balkans, and the USSR starting less than 6 months later. Invading Italy won't require the resources that were required to take down France and even waiting a few months to recover after France or until Spring 1941 they'd be able to move on Italy thereafter, while Italy too will be burning up their own resources recovering from the Fall of France as they would more likely than not send the bulk of their army to fight in France especially in June, which would not be favorable circumstances for them.And you are right this isn’t the same army it is one geared in general to fight this style of battle. Germany for the past year would of been burning up reasources like carzy to crush the french because as we saw otl the french continued to fight like utter dogs until they recieved orders to surrender if those orders never come the french will need to be overrun just like in calias which will burn alot. Also where the broder happens is important because the quickest way i can put it is it gives them far more time to blunt the offensive and it is in terrain far different then ww1 and possibly worse for the germans. i would like to point out that the break through in both capotetto and on the the slav border was completely reversed once italy had gotten its shit together and got diaz in charge. Now while their organisation was laughable it still would of been enough if not then it will just settle on the alpiennes where the line is alot shorter and the germans would of burnt alot of manpower getting there. If they want to take russia on they cant throw those reasources in if they abandon russia then they are eventually going to come a knocking anyways as stalins intention
By the time the surrender order came IOTL for the French they were pretty much defeated and while the individual acts of heroism of the French soldier were unquestionably brave it wasn't changing the situation, which was completely collapse of organized resistance. The contribution of Italian forces to France in May and June 1940 would help delay that collapse, if only because France would be unlikely to surrender as they did IOTL, but it would be difficult to see their expeditionary forces changing the outcome given the number actually available to deploy to France by 1940. Given their performance IOTL 1940 they'd probably just get swept up in the French collapse, as they weren't even as well prepared as the French, while also having the handicap of fighting in a foreign country with long supply lines, not speaking the language, and dealing with a heavily flawed Allied command structure on top of their particular deficiencies at the time.
IOTL the Italian recovery in 1917 at Caporetto was due to the logistical problems WW1 armies had moving rapidly over distance, which killed just about every country's offensives in that war. WW2 fixed that issue because of the advent of decently reliable truck transport/supply as well as air transport, improved rail links between the Alps, and of course improved communication and lessons learned from WW1 about large offensive logistics. So what stopped the Central Powers in WW1 in Italy in 1917 is not going to be a factor ITTL, not least of which because of much much less prepared to fight Italy is in 1939-40 as compared to 1917 after years of war, economic mobilization, and of course experienced gained. ITTL Italy is likely to have sent it's best prepared forces to France and lost them there or at least had them tied down there, so is unable to use them to guard the Slovenian border where the only real route to invade Italy actually lies. Given that the Soviets, who were vastly more capable of modern warfare than the Italians were, couldn't stop the Germans even in really rough terrain without Sevastopol level defenses, which the Italians lacked, the Italians, even with French and British support would be unlikely to, especially so close to Germany and German air bases.
In 1941 the Soviets only managed to do so after 5 million casualties and hundreds of miles of lost terrain, so it is unlikely the Apennines would either, especially if Northern Italy is lost, with most of Italy's industry.
Stalin didn't intend to attack Germany unless they were utterly falling apart and that wouldn't have been possible given the state of Soviet military forces in 1941 or 1942. Even Stalin thought he'd only be ready for defensive war in 1942. So likely Stalin is a non-factor to help the Allies until 1943 if at all, because it is hard to see the war still going and Germany worn down enough to make it easy enough for Stalin by his own pessimistic reckoning even by 1943.
But it's not the same terrain...
![]()
For the most part the hights of the Julian and Dinaric Alps were in the Austrians' rear, with the Italians occupying mere foothills, affording minimal depth before the Padan Plain begins.
The post WWI border gave the heights to Italy, and additionally gave them many more kilometres of mountainous depth.
![]()
The two frontiers are dramatically different with regard to terrain (foothills vs mountain ranges) and depth.
I'm talking about Germany invading via Yugoslavia, not the Austrian border; via Austria and the Brenner Pass it is basically impossible even if Italy is quite weak. The Slovenian-Italy border is very similar to the terrain that Caporetto was fought in, which is why I was making the comparison there and of course why Italy focused it's main offensive effort there in WW1. Once the Germans get through the Istrian hills/small mountains, which they should be able to given how the German mountain troops flanked the Metaxas Line in 1941 in similar terrain.